+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Thornborough "debate" (/showthread.php?tid=2060)
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 11th November 2005
"The 'subsoil' referred to in the paper about the green glass experiment actually means the natural gravel surface, i.e the surface into which negative archaeological features cut. Above this is ploughsoil."
I'm a little confused about this, do you mean the balls were placed no deeper than the existing plough depth, and that no specific measures were taken to ensure the topsoil covering had the same density as it had previously?
I'd have thought they would have been placed at varying depths below the existing plough horizon, using different coloured beads to denote those differing depths. Maybe I'm reading this wrong.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 11th November 2005
Sorry, just realised you will have levelled off the dug features to the plough horizon.
Any measures to compact the surface soil to its previous state?
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - Post-Med Potterer - 11th November 2005
Quote:quote:But what does an archaeologist know about tourism?
Very patronising. Many of us work directly in the tourism sector (national parks, museums etc.) and know considerably more about tourism from hands on experience than
Quote:quote:a student of Tourism Management
I agree that an empty field is not a big tourist attraction. Most tourists in that region will head for York, over 30km away. Even interested visitors are not going to flock to the henges in numbers sufficient to be sustainable without substantial government subsidy.
Thornborough "debate" - kevin wooldridge - 11th November 2005
Having become a complete and utter fan of the daily site diary over the last week; 2 questions.
1: We have heard a lot this week about the percentage of the site that is being evaluated. Why does a 50% sampling policy on all features in Area A for most of the week suddenly become a 100% sample on Thursday afternoon. Are the monitors beginning to lack confidence in their method statement? If so, why? I have 100% sympathy with the excavators on this and can understand why they might well be a tad pee-ed off this morning after working so hard to finish Area A.
2: Who is the father of baby George?
Thornborough "debate" - mercenary - 11th November 2005
Quote:quote:When I go to look at a site it is the archaeology I want to see. Your role is to explain it to me if you have the time.
Good to hear. I always have the time.
Thornborough "debate" - archae_logical - 11th November 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Post-Med PottererYes, about as patronising as a lot of archaeologists are to people like me. Not nice is it when you have no idea of what my experience and knowledge is.
Very patronising.
By the way I am a 57 year old student with a background in business and an interest in and understanding of archaeology/heritage does that make a difference. [?]
Being a student doesn't mean I have no knowledge. It's not like I'm 18 and just left school
Quote:quote: I agree that an empty field is not a big tourist attraction. Most tourists in that region will head for York, over 30km away. Even interested visitors are not going to flock to the henges in numbers sufficient to be sustainable without substantial government subsidy.Where did I say the visitors would all have to visit the henges? This is another Tarmac red herring. Do you know the area well? I lived there most of my life and have been involved in several archaeological projects.
Why should a good sustainable tourism plan have government subsidy?
Are your tourism skills lacking if you can only see York to visit in the area [?]
Oh dear, is this another case of archaeological lack of imagination
Thornborough "debate" - freelance - 11th November 2005
Kevin
1. There's a brief explanation of the change in sampling policy on today's diary entry. It appears that because ploughing is likely to destroy the remaining 50%, that too is being removed. Preservation by record rather than preservation in situ.
2. Lets wait for the DNA tests...
Thornborough "debate" - freelance - 11th November 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Venutius
Any measures to compact the surface soil to its previous state?
The four centimetres depth of glass beads represents a 12% increase in the volume of material used to backfill Trenches A & B. Given that all the excavated material was put back in the trench when it was backfilled, and the final level of soil was the same as that surrounding the trench, the material had to be compacted, and was probably slightly more compact thean the surrounding material.
Hope that helps...
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 15th November 2005
Not sure it does FL. Where did you get your 12% from? Are you saying that 12% of each trench is filled with beads?
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - freelance - 15th November 2005
I got this from a postscript to the plough damage experiment posted recently.
http://www.archaeologicalplanningconsultancy.co.uk/papers/001_plough_ps.html